Golla Rajanna and Ors v. The Divisional Manager and Ors. reported in

Regional Office, First Floor Pink Tower Sahara Chamber Tonk Road Jaipur. (Insurar vehicle No RJ02- G 9807) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. R C Goutam, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Saroj Jat, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 03/03/2025 [email protected] }kjk ;g vihy fo}ku U;k;ky; vk;qDr deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] 1923 vyoj }kjk okn la[;k WCA/F/52/2008 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o vokMZ fnukad [2025:RJ-JP:9127] (2 of 6) [CMA-4501/2011] 26-05-2010 ls O;fFkr gksdj izfrdj jkf'k esa c<+ksrjh gsrq izLrqr dh xbZ gSA la{ksi esa rF; ;g gS fd vihykFkhZx.k }kjk deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] 1923 dh /kkjk 22 ds varxZr fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa okn izLrqr dj ;g fuosnu fd;k fd mudk iq= tloar flag vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds Vªd la[;k vkjts 02 th 9807 ij [kyklh dk dk;Z dj jgk Fkk vkSj ml nkSjku fnukad 19-06-2008 dks Vªd dks [kM~Ms ls cpkus ds pDdj esa pkyd }kjk Vªd dks ,dne ckbZa rjQ dkVk x;k] ftlls Vªd iyV x;k vkSj [kyklh tloar flag dh e`R;q gks xbZA izR;FkhZ Øe&1 fu;kstd lqjthr flag }kjk tokc izLrqr dj e`rd dk vius ;gka [kyklh ds :i esa fu;ksftr gksuk rFkk 4]000@&:i;s ekfld osru o 50@&:i;s izfrfnu [kqjkd HkRrk fn;k tkuk Lohdkj fd;k] tcfd izR;FkhZ Øe&2 chek daiuh dh vksj ls e`rd dh vk; o vk;q ds rF; dks vLohdkj fd;k gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZx.k }kjk eq[; :i ls fook|d la[;k 3 ds fu"d"kZ dks pqukSrh nsrs gq, ;g fuosnu fd;k fd fu;kstd }kjk e`rd dh vk; o HkRrs 5500@&:i;s gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS ysfdu blds ckotwn vf/kdj.k }kjk e`rd dks v)Zdq'ky Jfed ekurs gq, rRle; izpfyr U;wure etnwjh nj 2782@&:i;s ekfld vk; ds fglkc ls izfrdj jkf”k fnykbZ gS] tks mfpr o fof/klEer ugha gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ Øe&1 }kjk fof/klEer vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k] tcfd izR;FkhZ Øe&2 chek [2025:RJ-JP:9127] (3 of 6) [CMA-4501/2011] daiuh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk fuosnu gS fd fook|d la[;k 3 ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk tks fu.kZ; jgk gS og rF;ksa ds laca/k esa gS rFkk deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 30 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj rF;ksa ds fcanq ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; gh vafre gS] tc rd fd og euekuk u gksA fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ Øe&2 dh vksj ls ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; Golla Rajanna and Ors. Vs. The Divisional Manager and Ors. reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45 dks izLrqr fd;k gS] ftlds iSjk la[;k 8] 9] 10 lqlaxr gSa] tks fuEeukuqlkj gS%& “8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeals to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows:

30. Appeals.-(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely: (a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half- monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; [(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty Under Section 4A;] (b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a halfmonthly payment; (c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant; (d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of Subsection (2) of Section 12; [2025:RJ-JP:9127] (4 of 6) [CMA-4501/2011] (e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions: Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and, in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in Clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees: (Emphasis supplied)

09. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, having regard to the evidence, had returned a finding on the nature of injury and the percentage of disability. It is purely a question of fact. There is no case for the insurance company that the finding is based on no evidence at all or that it is perverse. Under Section 4(1) (c)(ii) of the Act, the percentage of permanent disability needs to be assessed only by a qualified medical practitioner. There is no case for the Respondents that the doctor who issued the disability certificate is not a qualified medical practitioner, as defined under the Act. Thus, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has passed the order based on the certificate of disability issued by the doctor and which has been duly proved before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner.

10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal [2025:RJ-JP:9127] (5 of 6) [CMA-4501/2011] only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court Under Section 30 of the Act. fu;kstd izR;FkhZ Øe&1 }kjk vius vfHkdFkuksa esa e`rd dk ekfld osru 4]000@&:i;s rFkk 1]500@&:i;s izfrekg [kqjkd HkRrk gksuk vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS] ysfdu pwafd ;g okgu izR;FkhZ Øe&2 ds ;gka chfer Fkk] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa izfrdj jkf'k dk nkf;Ro chek daiuh ij fu/kkZfjr gksuk r; Fkk] ,slh fLFkfr esa fu;kstd dh LohdkjksfDr tc rd dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; ls lefFkZr u gks] rc rd chek daiuh ij dksbZ nkf;Ro vf/kjksfir ugha fd;k tk ldrkA nkosnkj vFkok fu;kstd nksuksa gh }kjk e`rd ds osru o HkRrksa ds laca/k esa dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gS vkSj ;gka rd fd fu;kstd Lo;a crkSj lk{kh ijhf{kr ugha gqvk gS vkSj bl dkj.k ls izHkkfor i{kdkj chek daiuh dks izfrijh{kk dk volj Hkh izkIr ugha gqvk gSA vfHkdFkuksa ds lk{; ds ek/;e ls izekf.kr fd;k tkuk vko';d Fkk] ftlesa nkosnkj rFkk fu;kstd nksuksa gh vlQy jgs gSaA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk v)Zdq'ky Jfed dh U;wure etnwjh njksaa ds vuqlkj tks izfrdj jkf'k dh x.kuk dh xbZ gS] og miyC/k lkexzh ds [2025:RJ-JP:9127] (6 of 6) [CMA-4501/2011] vuqlkj mfpr gSA mijksDr fu.kZ; euekuk gks vFkok lk{; o lkexzh ds rF;ksa ds iw.kZr% foijhr gks] ,slh fLFkfr Hkh ugha gSA vr% iwoksZDr fof/kd izko/kkuksa dks ns[krs gq, bl U;k;ky; }kjk bl ekeys esa dksbZ gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA ifj.kker% ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk vihyk/khu fu.kZ; o vokWMZ fnukad 26-05-2010 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA DINESH KUMAWAT /62 (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J